Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

All in one week: Marion Hanks, Marion Romney, Lorin Richards, LeGrand Richards, Nathan Tanner, Franklin Richards, Bruce McConkie, Gordon Hinckley, Milton Hunter, S. Dilworth Young, Dr. Henry Eyring, Robert Simpson, Sterling Sill, Alvin Dyer, Bernard Brockbank, Ivan J. Barrett, 2 medical doctors, music leading training, homemaking and cooking, the draft, auto safety, foot care.

Plus sessions of Conference in the Tabernacle with N. Elden Tanner, Marion Romney, Richard L. Evans, Joseph Fielding Smith, Gordon Hinckley, Eldred G. Smith, Marion Hanks, Mark E. Peterson, Harold B. Lee, Ezra T. Benson, Hugh Brown, and President McKay.

It was a dream come true. Like being in a Mormon theological school and a monastery.

I still remember the talk Elder LeGrand Richards gave in the SLC mission home.  He was quite old and frail at the time.  It looked like it took all of his physical strength he could muster to even get to the pulpit.  Then he starts his talk about the Book of Mormon, slow, feeble,  quietly. But it seemed like with each passing minute, each statement he made, he was gaining strength until  by the time he was finished he was pounding on the pulpit and as animated as a 20 year old.  Then almost like a plant wilting in the noonday sun, he ended his talk in the name of Jesus Christ.  The strength he had just moments before completely evaporated, and with great effort once again, shuffled his way back to his seat.  

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm fine if you "don't get why" I believe what I do.  But it's mainly because it's not that difficult to figure out how this practice/problem (or whatever term you choose to use) began. 

We can agree to disagree on this point and I'm also fine with that  

It's been going on for many years and I'm grateful to see it being addressed by President Ballard.   I agree that of course it was "never" their intent, but that does not mean that none of the leaders knew or know how it started, IMO.

Like I've stated it's not a big deal and I simply believe that one line could have been worded better to be more accurate.  But once again, it's not really a direct quote (although most likely represents his words).  It will be interesting if someone can post his exact words and quote....but I'm honestly not that concerned about it.  I have not been one here who has gotten into name calling or accusations and I do not agree with anyone doing that (on either side of this discussion).

In the 1953 “Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel” the baptism question is asked in the 2nd discussion...”if we can show you we have evidence that we have the priesthood, which gives us the power and authority to baptize, will you submit to baptism under our hands?” A date is suggested, but there are stipulations for more study,  prayer, and a personal testimony of the truthfulness of their message before baptism.

In the 1961 discussions that I quoted above, the baptism invitation was moved to the 1st discussion, but the conditions for receiving it remained the same.

So, at least from 1953, in the formal printed discussions, the missionaries were instructed to commit the investigator to baptism early on, but on condition of conversion.

Is the practice/problem that missionaries baptize people before they are converted? This would clearly be contrary to the instruction missionaries receive and the content of the discussions. Are you saying Elder Ballard was not aware of these discussions or that he is not aware of how and when people started ignoring them? None of our current leaders was in a position of authority in 1953. Not even in 1961, I believe.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I still remember the talk Elder LeGrand Richards gave in the SLC mission home.  He was quite old and frail at the time.  It looked like it took all of his physical strength he could muster to even get to the pulpit.  Then he starts his talk about the Book of Mormon, slow, feeble,  quietly. But it seemed like with each passing minute, each statement he made, he was gaining strength until  by the time he was finished he was pounding on the pulpit and as animated as a 20 year old.  Then almost like a plant wilting in the noonday sun, he ended his talk in the name of Jesus Christ.  The strength he had just moments before completely evaporated, and with great effort once again, shuffled his way back to his seat.  

What year? Yes, I remember that LeGrand Richards! He could really get fired up. I kinda miss that today.

A funny thing happened when I lived in Rockford, IL. In 1977 one of the big Lutheran Churches sponsored some anti-Mormon lectures. Might have been Walter Martin, I can’t recall for sure, but someone of that status and ilk. It was pretty nasty. I attended with a couple of LDS friends. At one point he had the audience so incensed that we felt in some danger had they known we were LDS. He lost all credibility for us, but it exceeded the ridiculous when he claimed he once attended a General Conference in the Tabernacle and heard the “great” LeGrand Richards speak. When Elder Richards quoted some Bible scriptures, the lecturer said, he realized they directly contradicted the Mormon doctrine he was teaching and closed his Bible and slowly slunk back to his seat in embarrassment. No. You never saw that, you liar! Never happened. Nope.

[ALarson]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that’s obvious from the discussions I quoted. It’s very clear what the intent was. Of course some may choose to deviate from the prescribed course.

No one has accused any of the leaders of doing anything with the intent to lower the retention rates.   I'm sure they had good intentions with every instruction and the approved discussions.

But over the years they've had to correct and guide regarding the practice of rushing investigators into baptisms (with some very extreme cases in different missions).  That's why to me, it's obvious that at least some of the leaders were aware of the practice that President Ballard referenced.  

 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is the practice/problem that missionaries baptize people before they are converted? This would clearly be contrary to the instruction missionaries receive and the content of the discussions. Are you saying Elder Ballard was not aware of these discussions or that he is not aware of how and when people started ignoring them? 

I'm saying I believe he was most likely speaking for himself in an honest manner.  I do not believe that no church leaders were aware that what you describe was happening in some missions (which was part of the cause for lower retention rates). Or do you believe they just now figured that out?

Others have posted how it's been spoken of prior to this when instructions were given to Mission Presidents, so I believe some knew of the practice.

(I'm off of here now and pretty much done with this discussion anyway.  

Happy 4th everyone!!)

Edited July 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No one has accused any of the leaders of doing anything with the intent to lower the retention rates.   I'm sure they had good intentions with every instruction and the approved discussions.

But over the years they've had to correct and guide regarding the practice of rushing investigators into baptisms (with some very extreme cases in different missions).  That's why to me, it's obvious that at least some of the leaders were aware of the practice that President Ballard referenced.  

So they were aware and trying to correct it all along? Who is at fault then? I’m having a hard time finding the beef.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So they were aware and trying to correct it all along? Who is at fault then? I’m having a hard time finding the beef.

I think it’s only this part:

”Church leaders don’t know where these practices began.”

Some must have known or how would they know what to correct?  

Edited July 4, 2019 by JulieM

[Kenngo1969]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So they were aware and trying to correct it all along? Who is at fault then? I’m having a hard time finding the beef.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What year? Yes, I remember that LeGrand Richards! He could really get fired up. I kinda miss that today.

A funny thing happened when I lived in Rockford, IL. In 1977 one of the big Lutheran Churches sponsored some anti-Mormon lectures. Might have been Walter Martin, I can’t recall for sure, but someone of that status and ilk. It was pretty nasty. I attended with a couple of LDS friends. At one point he had the audience so incensed that we felt in some danger had they known we were LDS. He lost all credibility for us, but it exceeded the ridiculous when he claimed he once attended a General Conference in the Tabernacle and heard the “great” LeGrand Richards speak. When Elder Richards quoted some Bible scriptures, the lecturer said, he realized they directly contradicted the Mormon doctrine he was teaching and closed his Bible and slowly slunk back to his seat in embarrassment. No. You never saw that, you liar! Never happened. Nope.

I entered the mission home in 1969

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So they were aware and trying to correct it all along? Who is at fault then?

Well, if "they were trying to correct it all along"....then they knew about the practice.  I think that's the issue (and not a big one) with how he stated things.

As far as "fault", I'm not really concerned about trying to put blame on anyone.  I think there's enough to go around....over zealous missionaries caused by over zealous leaders caused by misunderstanding (possibly) direction that could have been possibly more thorough....obsessing too much about numbers....and then allowing it to go on for decades without uniformly correcting the practice.  Just my opinion.

Edited July 5, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

they knew about the practice

Is this the same as knowing cause though?

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this the same as knowing cause though?

The cause for low retention rates?  I guess that's a separate question and could also be discussed.

The phrase some object to is not about the cause, but states:

"Church leaders don’t know where these practices began."   

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The cause for low retention rates? 

No, the practices.

I read the “where” as more a “why and how”.. 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, the practices.

I read the “where” as more a “why and how”.. 

Sounds to me like leaders don't take the lead sometimes, such as withholding the PH from the blacks for so long.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sounds to me like leaders don't take the lead sometimes....

Given the nature of our faith with lay leadership moving up, I think this is a good thing.  If leadership only came from longtime leaders, development might get rather stale at times until new innovators moved into positions.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

No one has accused any of the leaders of doing anything with the intent to lower the retention rates.   I'm sure they had good intentions with every instruction and the approved discussions.

But over the years they've had to correct and guide regarding the practice of rushing investigators into baptisms (with some very extreme cases in different missions).  That's why to me, it's obvious that at least some of the leaders were aware of the practice that President Ballard referenced.  

 

Again, being aware of it is not the same thing as knowing how and when it originated. We can make our best guess, but that’s all we can do. And, notwithstanding your certitude, I believe that’s all you have done. You want to pin the blame, at least in part, on the Church and its high-level leaders and, despite documented indications to the contrary, what you think are unclear printed instructions. I and others here believe it most likely originated with and was sustained over the years by overzealous missionaries and possibly mission presidents. But nobody — not you, not I, not the general Church leaders themselves — can identify when and how it got started. And that’s what President Ballard said. 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, if "they were trying to correct it all along"....then they knew about the practice.  I think that's the issue (and not a big one) with how he stated things.

As far as "fault", I'm not really concerned about trying to put blame on anyone.  I think there's enough to go around....over zealous missionaries caused by over zealous leaders caused by misunderstanding (possibly) direction that could have been possibly more thorough....obsessing too much about numbers....and then allowing it to go on for decades without uniformly correcting the practice.  Just my opinion.

Yep. Not much of an issue.

The directions in the discussions are not hard to understand.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, being aware of it is not the same thing as knowing how and when it originated. We can make our best guess, but that’s all we can do. And, notwithstanding your certitude, I believe that’s all you have done. You want to pin the blame, at least in part, on the Church and its high-level leaders and, despite documented indications to the contrary, what you think are unclear printed instructions. I and others here believe it most likely originated with and was sustained over the years by overzealous missionaries and possibly mission presidents. But nobody — not you, not I, not the general Church leaders themselves — can identify when and how it got started. And that’s what President Ballard said. 

He stated "church leaders" and that's where I believe he's not accurate.  I believe there were leaders over they years who were in touch enough and in tune enough to know why some of these rushed baptisms were taking place.  They couldn't all be in the dark regarding that, IMO.

I'll respond to Bernard's comment below and then I'm moving on.  I'm fine if we just agree to disagree as I'm not going to change your mind and I am not going to change what I believe on this.  I will add that I do not believe Pres. Ballard was lying or doing anything dishonest or deceitful here.....I just believe that part of the statement is not accurate.  But once again, they are men and also not infallible.  It's also not a big deal, IMO.  I can understand though (when reading some experiences from those who have served missions) why some did react the way they did regarding his statement.

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yep. Not much of an issue.

The directions in the discussions are not hard to understand.

Well, they've certainly been misunderstood by many over decades.  Look up what Hartman Rector, Jr. was doing as the Mission President in San Diego.  I witnessed that first hand (bringing bus loads up from Mexico and baptizing them in swimming pools after only one discussion and then busing them back to Mexico).  He was a General Authority too.   Look at the baseball baptism incident.  Read some of the experiences posters here had on their missions.  You can say the instructions in the discussions "are not hard to understand".....but certainly something went wrong and even Pres. Ballard acknowledges there's something to correct (and it didn't just start being a practice now).

And yes, it's "not much of an issue" for me.  But as I just stated, I can understand why it is for some because of how Pres. Ballard worded his statement and what some experienced on their missions.    

I am also fine if you disagree (this is a discussion board and that's normal  ).

I am truly moving on now....we're going in circles and I've pretty much said what I believe regarding this topic.

Edited July 5, 2019 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Read some of the experiences posters here had on their missions.  You can say the instructions in the discussions "are not hard to understand".....but certainly something went wrong ...

Did you read my experiences? We found the instructions we were given 'not hard to understand', followed them, and nothing went wrong.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you read my experiences? We found the instructions we were given 'not hard to understand', followed them, and nothing went wrong.

Note the word "some" in my statement.  I've also stated the I know people had varied experiences on here, etc.

I've never stated that ALL have experienced this on their missions.  I know yours was near perfect 😉

(And that's great!  I loved my mission as well....but did experience pressure to baptize and numbers were very stressed and very important.  We all had a variety of experiences).

Edited July 5, 2019 by ALarson

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think it’s only this part:

”Church leaders don’t know where these practices began.”

Some must have known or how would they know what to correct?  

I think the difference is that you don't have to know where (or why or how) a practice began in order to know that a practice exists. 

 

[mrmarklin]

 

Wow!

This topic has raged on for several days, and I have offered my opinion as well. 

Maybe we should just settle on the idea that Ballard misspoke. I can live with that, in spite of my opinion. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I think the difference is that you don't have to know where (or why or how) a practice began in order to know that a practice exists. 

 

Not always, I agree.  But if some posters on here can figure it out, I believe at least a few leaders could do the same!  It’s not difficult to discern or track (there are not too many choices or sources to look at for the cause.).  This has been a practice and problem for a very long time and I can’t believe leaders haven’t looked for the cause (and been able to figure it out).  And an example was given above involving a general authority.  So at least he knew and that’s one who was corrected early on.

Edited July 5, 2019 by JulieM

[SettingDogStar]

I think this has always been what the main issue has been on this (surprisingly long) thread. Most of us have figured out where it began by just recalling that our mission presidents/mission leaders taught it to us! It may have been incorrect or a misapplication of the invitations in the discussions, but I sure know where I learned it. So while Ballard may be confused as to why people ignored the instructions I find it hard to believe he doesn't know how people got the idea or just misapplied instructions. The scriptures are full of misapplied verses and laws that the people get rebuked for.

I don't think Ballard was being disingenuous on purpose or was trying to "hide" some dirty part of our history or something. However that certain quote isn't exactly correct because there are obviously church leaders who know where it began, even if Ballard didn't know.